"Only one president..."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Read a piece in the local fish-wrap today (as with most of their non-local stuff it came off the AP wire) that numerous persons/governments in the arab world were upset with Obama for not taking a public stance on the events occurring in Gaza. Obama's team have, to date, stuck pretty scrupulously to the "there is only one President" approach, deferring to Bush while noting that they were paying attention.

This is likely to play well in the USA -- where the middle-of-the-roaders want to see Obama behaving correctly and following basic political tradition -- but such a view is not universal.

What say you all, especially those of you across one of the "ponds" that border my lovely nation?

[Ice]

Read a piece in the local fish-wrap today (as with most of their non-local stuff it came off the AP wire) that numerous persons/governments in the arab world were upset with Obama for not taking a public stance on the events occurring in Gaza. Obama's team have, to date, stuck pretty scrupulously to the "there is only one President" approach, deferring to Bush while noting that they were paying attention.

This is likely to play well in the USA -- where the middle-of-the-roaders want to see Obama behaving correctly and following basic political tradition -- but such a view is not universal.

What say you all, especially those of you across one of the "ponds" that border my lovely nation?

I'd say the approach is the correct one. There is only one president and until Obama is sworn in by the chief justice, George W Bush is our commander in chief.

[seireikhaan]

Well, I'm probably biased, being an American and whatnot, but I think he should wait till W's term is over before he starts being President.

[Meneldil]

I'm not an american but I agree nontheless.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Read a piece in the local fish-wrap today (as with most of their non-local stuff it came off the AP wire) that numerous persons/governments in the arab world were upset with Obama for not taking a public stance on the events occurring in Gaza. Obama's team have, to date, stuck pretty scrupulously to the "there is only one President" approach, deferring to Bush while noting that they were paying attention.

This is likely to play well in the USA -- where the middle-of-the-roaders want to see Obama behaving correctly and following basic political tradition -- but such a view is not universal.

What say you all, especially those of you across one of the "ponds" that border my lovely nation?

Sure. I don't want to or expect to hear much from him until innaguration day.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Read a piece in the local fish-wrap today (as with most of their non-local stuff it came off the AP wire) that numerous persons/governments in the arab world were upset with Obama for not taking a public stance on the events occurring in Gaza. Obama's team have, to date, stuck pretty scrupulously to the "there is only one President" approach, deferring to Bush while noting that they were paying attention.

This is likely to play well in the USA -- where the middle-of-the-roaders want to see Obama behaving correctly and following basic political tradition -- but such a view is not universal.

What say you all, especially those of you across one of the "ponds" that border my lovely nation?

I suspect that the countries where people are concerned about Obama's silence either have immediate transitions or "hereditary" premierships.

The US system is seen in many quarters as quite unwieldy, leading to a lame duck period and perceptions of a president in office with little constraint on his capriciousness for nearly three months. It seems odd, particularly when the people have voted for a significant change in political direction, that the tanker steams blithely on for another quarter - much of which time, Congress seems to be on holiday/without mandate too.

Having said that, President-elect Obama (I think he is able to be called that now?) is behaving exactly as he should in accordance with the US tradition, which is all that matters.

[Furunculus]

Read a piece in the local fish-wrap today (as with most of their non-local stuff it came off the AP wire) that numerous persons/governments in the arab world were upset with Obama for not taking a public stance on the events occurring in Gaza. Obama's team have, to date, stuck pretty scrupulously to the "there is only one President" approach, deferring to Bush while noting that they were paying attention.

This is likely to play well in the USA -- where the middle-of-the-roaders want to see Obama behaving correctly and following basic political tradition -- but such a view is not universal.

What say you all, especially those of you across one of the "ponds" that border my lovely nation?

I'd say the approach is the correct one. There is only one president and until Obama is sworn in by the chief justice, George W Bush is your commander in chief.

[CountArach]

Obama has far more political capital than anyone else in the world at this time. If he were to publicly denounce Israel (It would never happen despite the American public being evenly divided on it) then there is a fair chance that Israel would at least reign itself in. If he threatened to cut some of the US Aid then Israel would seriously cut back. I wish he would do this, but like I said I doubt he will...

[Kralizec]

If Obama is against the offensive in Gaza, I imagine that Israeli ministers know this by the usual backdoor channels anyway.

If he were to state so publicly, he'd be breaking tradition and cutting his own fingers as well- he can perfectly afford not taking sides in this particular event.

[rory_20_uk]

He is right not to voice an opinion, and I also think that this will stand him in better stead as his slate will be clean at the start of the job, not with policies and comments that might come back to haunt him, as he can declaim but not act.

Getting one's act together to land running is extremely sensible and I am surprised that he is one of the first presidents to do this. But setting the precident of commenting whilst waiting could lead to this becoming more prevalent in the future.

~:smoking:

[Reverend Joe]

The US system is seen in many quarters as quite unwieldy, leading to a lame duck period and perceptions of a president in office with little constraint on his capriciousness for nearly three months. It seems odd, particularly when the people have voted for a significant change in political direction, that the tanker steams blithely on for another quarter - much of which time, Congress seems to be on holiday/without mandate too.

That's actually a good point; "lame duck" presidents have been historically unpleasant to have around, mainly in the situation we have now, when they are free to do whatever they want for about three months without worrying about the repercussions on their party for another four years at least. I also fail to understand the point of such a system; probably it has something to do with tyranny (with a period before the new president coming in giving the old one some time to slow down the new) but what it does is to create a tyranny of the old president, rather than a tyranny of the fickle majority.

As for the present situation... the combination of what Obama could be doing with what Bush has been able to get away with makes me really wish we would switch to the instant transition of power following election day.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Obama spoke out on Mumbai and the economic stimulus package so the "only one president" excuse seems to be optional. It's just not in his best interests to say anything yet about Gaza.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's actually a good point; "lame duck" presidents have been historically unpleasant to have around, mainly in the situation we have now, when they are free to do whatever they want for about three months without worrying about the repercussions on their party for another four years at least. I also fail to understand the point of such a system; probably it has something to do with tyranny (with a period before the new president coming in giving the old one some time to slow down the new) but what it does is to create a tyranny of the old president, rather than a tyranny of the fickle majority.


The specific timing of things is more a result of 18th century logistics and the original concept of election than anything else (refresher for those non-yanks included).

General Election = 1st Tuesday in November; Electoral College Votes in Mid-December; Congress certifies the Electoral Vote in early January; President innaugurated 20 January.

1st Tuesday in November is a traditional choice for our vote for Presidential electors, the Constitution only mandates that the legislature of a given state choose their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. Currently, all states use the general election, held on the traditional first Tuesday in November, as their tool for apportioning electors from their state.

The Electoral College votes, each state group in their own state capital, on the same calendar day (mandated by Congress). The 3rd Monday in December is now pretty traditionally chosen, though it varies.

A joint session of Congress opens and certifies those results, usually as one of their first items of business, on the opening day of the new Congress (on or about 6 January usually). Should this NOT produce a majority, the Congress is mandated to select the President from among the top 5 electoral vote recipients as their first and sole item of business, voting by state for this selection.

The inauguration was, during FDR's terms, moved from the originally chosen date of March 4th up to its current January 20th in order to minimize lame-duck concerns.


So, remember that the original timings were based on 18th century travel times and the need for Congress to have time to meet, certify, and possibly ELECT the next President prior to the term of the preceding President concluding (e.g. Congress meets 6 jan, finally selects one of the tied electoral vote recipients as Pres on Jan 18, express riders notify this fellow (living in Montpelier, VT, almost 8 days later because of the snows, then this person has to tidy up private affairs, prepare a move, move down etc -- 4 March was sometimes pushing it).

Officially, the general election means nothing to the selection of the President, though that is the day everyone has in their heads. In the past, we found a wait of 4 months too long and shortened it to two. Now, it would seem, there is interest in shortening the delay even more.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Woops, wrong thread.

[Vladimir]

Hmm. I thought you were supposed to cut the other guy's head off to gain his powers. :stupido:

[Ronin]

Hmm. I thought you were supposed to cut the other guy's head off to gain his powers. :stupido:

So the president of the united states is like Highlander????

Cool!!!....HERE WE ARE, BORN TO BE KINGS, WE´RE THE PRINCES OF THE UNIVERSE!!!! *air-guitars* :2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

'd say the approach is the correct one. There is only one president and until Obama is sworn in by the chief justice, George W Bush is our commander in chief.


:juggle2:

Thats Obuma the juggler. He acts presidential when it suits him and ducks out when it doesnt. He has no such quams when it comes to the economy. I think part of the reason Israel attack now as they wanted to do it before this bum got in office.

[Lemur]

Thats Obuma the juggler. He acts presidential when it suits him and ducks out when it doesnt. He has no such quams when it comes to the economy..
Last I checked Obama consulted (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/business/24bush.php) with Bush before making statements about, say, the bailout (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15914.html). The two guys, like, worked together or something like that. Hard to believe, I know.


I talked to President-elect Obama about the decision we made. I told the American people, and I told the president-elect when I first met him that any time we were to make a — a big decision during this transition, he will be informed as will his team.

Secretary Paulson is working closely with the president-elect's transition team. It's important for the American people to know that there is close cooperation. It's important for the American people to know that we will safeguard the financial system as the first step necessary for financial and economic recovery. .. Mr. Secretary, thanks for your hard work. ‘Preciate it. Thank you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the "lame duck" period has it's advantages, Hung Parliaments and contested elections can caust problems for us because we can be without a legislature or a cabinet.

[Xiahou]

Last I checked Obama consulted (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/business/24bush.php) with Bush before making statements about, say, the bailout (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15914.html). The two guys, like, worked together or something like that. Hard to believe, I know.What's your point? He still made statements about it.

He could just as easily do the same on Gaza conflict, but does not. Consulting with Bush or not, he's not afraid to speak out about domestic matters, but ducks saying anything meaningful otherwise.

[seireikhaan]

What's your point? He still made statements about it.

He could just as easily do the same on Gaza conflict, but does not. Consulting with Bush or not, he's not afraid to speak out about domestic matters, but ducks saying anything meaningful otherwise.
Perhaps because he and Bush feel much the same way about the economic response needed, and his views on foreign policy would undermine, rather than support, the current administration?

[Vladimir]

Perhaps because he and Bush feel much the same way about the economic response needed, and his views on foreign policy would undermine, rather than support, the current administration?

:thinking: Thereby speaking volumes without uttering a single word. Brilliant! :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

I hate to admit but I'm starting to like this guy. :afro: